Paul McCartney has one of the longest and most successful careers of any musician in history. Everyone knows he was a core part of The Beatles, and everyone, regardless of age or nationality, knows at least one of his songs. But even beyond The Beatles, his accomplishments with Wings and as a solo musician are still remarkable, and he's selling out stadiums to this day.
Despite being considered a living legend, there is a long tradition of disregarding his role in the creation of modern pop music as well as his influence in other genres. For a man with countless biographies written about him, Paul is still seen as a two-dimensional cartoon character in certain ways. However, before we can discuss why, we have to explain the history of how Paul has been portrayed to the public over the years.
The narrative that was set by rock critics after The Beatles broke up (aided by a spiteful John Lennon), was that Paul was the PR Beatle. A total control freak, hence why bought more shares of Northern Songs (the company him and John set up to publish their songs together) behind Lennon's back, and why he didn't want to sign with manager Allen Klein.
Not only that, but his solo work from the early seventies was put down in comparison to what his two songwriting bandmates, John and George, were releasing. While they were being praised for being "authentic," Paul was regarded as the worst solo musician of the group and
Ram in particular was called "
monumentally irrelevant" in it's orginal 1971 review by Rolling Stone.
Even after the Beatles made up in the mid 1970s and John admitted to exagerating and lying due to feeling wronged by Paul, the damage was already done. The general public still loved Paul as well as his new ventures with Wings, but in rock circles and certain Beatle fan circles, he was still seen as a less serious musician.
In the wake of John Lennon's murder and throughout the 80s, the myth-creators that call themselves biographers (I'm talking about you Philip Norman), fanned the flames of Lennon vs McCartney discourse for decades to come. John became an idol in the literal sense of the word. He was the truth-teller, the only avant garde musician in The Beatles, and the perfect activist that everyone should aspire to be like. And while there are aspects of John Lennon The Myth that are rooted in reality, there is something deeply disturbing to me about taking an unfair act of violence and dehumanizing the victim in order to reinforce a narrative about why they are a better artist than their bandmate Not to mention the horrific conspiracy theories that accused Yoko Ono of carrying out the murder, thus degrading his surviving family as well.
Recently, the tides have turned radically in favour of Paul. His solo work has finally come back to being appreciated, with Ram being cited as the first indie pop album due to it's DIY nature, and he's recieved more empathetic coverage by both biographers and music fans.
Get Back (2021), directed by Peter Jackson, shows previously unseen and restored footage that didn't make it into the original Let It Be documentary released alongside the album in 1970, after the Beatles had already parted ways. In it, we see Paul McCartney not as a tough authoritarian, but a disheveled young man, trying his best to keep the spirits up and push through even though he knows this is the end of the line.
To me, a great part of this rediscovery of Paul can be attributed to the more compassionate portrayal of the breakup offered by Jackson's Get Back. The tension doesn't fall squarely on one persons shoulders, but rather on the collective miscommunications and pre-existing resentments within the group that were allowed to fester.
But the question remains: Why has this original narrative prevailed? How have so many people been fooled to believe that there is no depth to Paul?
Well, it all boils down to this: Paul McCartney is not a very public person, despite being a public figure. He has discussed emotional topics like his grief after John's murder, Linda's battle with cancer and his relationship with the other Beatles in interviews, but he usually sticks to the same answers and anecdotes. Rarely ever does he reveal more than he has to. He keeps his guard up on the press, and for good reason too, since his every move can and often times will be interpreted in bad faith.
There is also this idea that an artist has to reveal his deepest traumas through their art or in public in order to be a "real" artist. This is often brought up when comparing John and Paul. Whereas Lennon exposed very intimate details about himself in the press and in his songs multiple times, McCartney has created a public persona to allow for his own privacy, and his songs cover a wide variety of themes that aren't strictly auto biographical.
But again, just because he doesn't want to reveal his emotional core to the public, doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Beatles fans have analyzed Paul for years now, using the information that we do have as well as the repeated themes in his songwriting. With this, we can piece together a more comprehensive, empathetic tale of Paul McCartney than what a lot of Beatles writers have done in the past. And we can see how that view of Paul has been making it's way into the mainstream.
Nevertheless, the official story still haunts the public. The media narrative created around the myth of the Beatles is so powerful, so all consuming, that whenever Paul says anything that strays from the established "canon," even if it's something he personally experienced, certain types of Beatles fans are quick to dismiss him. They want both the performance and the real thing. They want Paul to reveal new information, but they also want him to adhere to (and never contradict) the traditional Beatles tale that's been told since at least the 80s.
Tumblr user amoralto put it best when discussing the Get Back documentary before its release:
"Basically, the very reframing, the very act of recutting of the film in and of itself, will be (and already is) seen by many people as a rewriting of history. Which is sad and silly, because in this case the history should be rewritten; it’s just that however well it’s written, it’s still at the mercy of being read, and how, and by who."
In 2027, the world will turn it's expectant eyes to four new biopics about each of the Beatles. It is my hope that the tropes and myths that have surrounded the story of this wonderful group will be forgotten in favour of a more fair portrayal of all members, including Paul, taking into account the real human beings behind the narrative.
